U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who I told y'all a week ago would brook no nonsense from the lawyers, abruptly ended Roger Clemens's federal perjury trial Thursday by declaring a mistrial based upon prosecutorial misconduct. The jurors have been sent home. The witnesses, too. And now, for the time being anyway, the famous defendant, the seven-time Cy Young Award-winner, won't have to worry about becoming a convicted felon or, worse, a prison inmate.

Judge Walton blew up the high-profile trial after concluding that federal prosecutors had unduly prejudiced jurors by showing them information on a videotape that the judge had specifically precluded from the case. Jurors were shown a portion of a 2008 Congressional hearing on steroids (the same one which got Clemens in trouble in the first place) in which the testimony of Andy Petitte's wife, Laura, was discussed. Because that information was considered inadmissible hearsay evidence, the judge had ruled before the trial that it could not be used with jurors to bolster the credibility of Petitte himself, at least at the outset of the trial. Petitte, for those of you coming late to the game, is Clemens' friend and former New York Yankees' teammate and was a key prosecution witness.

The feds couldn't even get their case-in-chief beyond the second day of trial testimony before screwing it all up

The issue of Petitte's credibility—and the way it was to be presented to jurors—first came up on Wednesday during opening statements when prosecutors made an inappropriate statement about such evidence. They were promptly scolded by the judge. And yet, one day later, prosecutors inexplicably showed jurors the videotape anyway without redacting the portion that mentioned Laura Petitte. This prompted a visibly angry judge to say in open court "we can't unring this bell" now that the jury has seen important information it was not supposed to see. "Government counsel can't do what it thinks it can get away with," Judge Walton said. "Any first year law student should know that."

For purposes of the Sixth Amendment anyway, it doesn't really matter whether federal lawyers intentionally refused to clean up their evidence ("Leave it in, maybe no one will notice") or whether it was just a stupid mistake or oversight by a member of the prosecution team. ("Wait, I thought you were going to redact the video!") Either way, Clemens' fair trial rights were violated and the judge felt compelled to act. Mistrials may be rare but they occur often in circumstances like this, where a judge believes the jury has been shown information that it wasn't meant to see and may materially influence the outcome of the trial.

Do you get the feeling that someone's head is going to roll for this at the Justice Department? I do. The feds already had come under significant criticism from many corners of the legal, political, and sporting worlds for devoting time, energy, and money prosecuting the popular athlete for allegedly lying about a performance-enhancing drug. And the Justice Department had largely answer that criticism by reminding people that lying under oath is no small matter under the rule of law. But the feds couldn't even get their case-in-chief beyond the second day of trial testimony before screwing it all up. It's no small matter either, Judge Walton reminded prosecutors Thursday by ending their case, to blow off a judge's pre-trial evidentiary rulings.

Indeed, this is a colossal and embarrassing result for the Justice Department. The feds had the stronger hand in the case and every reason to believe they would have gotten their conviction against Clemens even without the extralegal bolstering of Petitte's testimony. I mean, so pure is his reputation, I half-expected Petitte to come into the courtroom with a halo over his head. In fact, of the two main government witnesses, it was the other guy, former Clemens' trainer Brian McNamee, whose credibility and reliability may have needed a boost. So not only was this mistake costly for the Justice Department, it was also unnecessary. And I wouldn't be surprised to see an internal ethics investigation at DOJ into the circumstances surrounding this mistrial.

For the defense, on the other hand, the mistrial must seem like the memorable scene from The Natural in which the hero of the story miraculously snatches victory from the jaws of defeat. Clemens was facing one year or so in prison (my calculation) if he had been convicted by these jurors and sentenced by this judge. And the government had a very strong case against him. Now, all that is in jeopardy—as in "double jeopardy." Judge Walton has scheduled a September 2nd hearing to determine whether prosecutors may try Clemens again (even if they want to) or are barred from doing so by the rule that prohibits a defendant from being tried twice for the same crime.

Will prosecutors simply walk away from the case against Clemens? Will they even have a choice? Ask me after September's hearing. Will we ever know more about what Clemens knew or didn't know about his own alleged steroids use? Unfortunately, Thursday's murky end to the trial, just as the rest of us were about to learn the rest of the story, means those questions will linger for quite some time. I guess that's the only bit of bad news Clemens received Thursday, which just might turn out to be the first day of the rest of his life.

Most Popular

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”